Originally posted by googoomuck:
Example of an At-will employment agreement clause among
employers in Singapore:
[b]During the probationary period, your employment may be
terminated by either party giving 1 month written notice. After
comfirmation, either party may terminate this agreement at any time
before the end of the contract period by giving the other one month
written notice of termination, provided that either party may
terminate this agreement without notice or by giving the other
party a sum equal to the salary the employee would have earned
during the notice period or the period for which the notice period
has fallen short of the one month notice of
termination.
Although at-will employment allows an employee to quit for no
reason, the rule that either party can terminate the relationship
is most often invoked when an employer wants to fire an employee at
any time. Since this practice virtually eliminates job security, it
can create an atmosphere of fear that may contribute to workplace
bullying.
There is no exceptions to at-will employment created in
Singapore.
The clause is in favour of the employer, with the burden of proof
on the discharged employee.
This clause is not favourable to an employee who took maternity
leave and lost her job.
And also for employees pressured to resign by the employer. As far
as I know, theres no legal concept call constructive termination
in Singapore employment law.
In constructive termination an employee quits her job because her
working conditions have become unbearable. The resignation is
voluntary. A court, however, might view such a resignation as
involuntary because by not repairing the working situation, the
employer has, in effect, forced the employee to leave.
This can happen in other first world countries courts but dont
think it will happen in Singapore.
[/b]
At-will employment agreement may sound that both parties are at
will to terminate a contract, the fact of life is the stronger
party is always able to exploit the weaker party like Power Supply
increasing its electricity charges claiming the oil prices have
increased world-wide.
Once an employee signs the bottom line, he is at the whims and
fancies of the employer as the employee is no longer as fluid as
the employer to get another offer - at least not so easy for most
employees" - who could easily advertise to get a number of
candidates to fill up the vacancy.
So in actual life, an employee has little contractual right as the
employer and whatever that is written into an employment contract
to give the employer those right the employer could just apply
those right to the extent of not complying with the contractual
rights of the employee.
A government is elected to represent the people and protect the
people against exploitation by the strong and wicked. Is it wrong
to expect our government to go back to this principle and do
something to redress a one-sided employee-employer labor relation
justified as tripartism to better protect the employer.
